Talk:Sycamore Gap tree

please reinstate description of tree as iconic

The fact that Sycamore Gap tree is recognized as "iconic" is relevant. The specific citation supporting the claim of it being iconic was removed in the edit of 16:03, 13 December 2023 and the claim itself was subsequently removed in the edit of 11:07, 9 March 2024. Fabrickator (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Naming of the accused

Those accused of the crime, under British law, are innocent until proven guilty. As such, their names should not appear in the article. Iff they are found guilty at trial, then we can discuss whether or not to name them. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. WP:SUSPECT says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Also, Wikipedia does not have to cover every development as it happens and can wait until a conviction. I have removed the names for now. 04:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Several points occur to me.

First, the fact that they have been charged is Wikipedia-worthy. While covering every detail of the court proceedings from beginning to end seems unnecessary for an encyclopedia, the names of who is charged with a notable crime that has England's -- and, indeed, the world's -- attention seems like reasonable information.

Second, whether they're innocent until proven guilty has no bearing on the worthiness of notation in a Wikipedia article. If we're truly embracing an WP:NPOV in Wikipedia articles, the best example of NPOV is to merely mention the names of the individuals and that they have been CHARGED.

Third, WP:SUSPECT says that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" -- but this is about seriously considering, not banning outright. If the police release names and the courts release names and the media is allowed in the courtroom to get names, and through all of this no court has sealed the charges, then clearly this is public information.

Fourth, WP:BLP1E it says that "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." These people's names have been VERY persistently covered by a WIDE RANGE of reliable sources -- pick any news outlet in England, never mind the rest of the world. Indy (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree that publication of anyone's name does not infer guilt. Under British law, named individuals are innocent until proven guilty just as are unnamed individuals. If names are meant to be concealed, until a case has been tried and verdict delivered, I think Wikipedia policy ought to explicitly state this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - WT:BLP is the place to argue for changes to the wording. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Do you think it's currently sufficiently clear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, the wording clearly says "editors must seriously consider not including the material" and does NOT say "editors must never include names." So the point really isn't about arguing for wording changes on WT:BLP but arguing that omitting these names is not mandated by those rules -- and, in fact, given the wording on WP:BLP1E that my fourth point notes above, it seems to indicate that, per those guidelines, the names should appear. Indy (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm also unsure how knowledge of an individual's name will prejudice a fair trial. Where there are real legal restrictions, as in the case of accused minors, the court will make reporting restrictions very clear and Wikipedia will have to respect these just like anyone else. Where the names of accused individuals are in the public domain and are known across the world, I'm not sure what is to be gained by suppressing them here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

p.s. does this aspect of WP:SUSPECT also apply to Talk pages like this one? I see it says "—in any article—". I can't yet see why we would want to name them here, but are we permitted? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

32 references listed.

Very short and poorly written article. It is lacking very key elements for the importance of the tree, yet there were 32 references listed. This article doesn't even state the age of the tree. 50.120.10.25BLT\0 (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

How old was the tree? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Tee hee! I don't know who you were intending to address this to. The point is, though, that the age of the tree IS addressed in the article. Nevertheless, trees (at least in the wild) don't have birth certificates! Furthermore, the significance of the tree is not dependent on the age of the tree, though the age does suggest, in a sense, the significance of the loss.

The OP is unhappy, suffering under the belief that the article omits details which he deems pertinent, and finds the situation particularly egregious because there are numerous citations. He cannot reasonably expect the details from all those sources to be incorporated into the article, but if he is so interested, he presumably has access to many or most of those sources. His complaint reflects quite poorly on himself, assuming that he is not a child. If he's older, then I would perhaps view this as some sort of a prank, along the lines of "See here, what a silly bunch of people these are, making such a fuss over a stupid tree. And to think they would bother themselves with listing 32 sources!" Fabrickator (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Good job it was felled, I say! At least we can count the rings to see how old it was... You've certainly cut the IP down to size. "Fnaaar, fnaaar". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I presume you realized the point about counting the rings had already been noted at least a couple of times previoiusly, yet there does not seem to be any mention of it having been done. Perhaps it's not such an easy way to get an accurate count. Fabrickator (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Complaint about poorly written article

A complaint has been posted by an IP editor that this article is "poorly written". This complaint is outrageous and highly offensive.

I request that said complaint be disposed of with extreme prejudice. Alternatively, I request leave to respond to said complaint without abiding by our normal rules of civility. Fabrickator (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Errrm, you could just ignore it as a complete waste of time? Or else ask the IP to suggest actual improvements. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)